Israel's policy on issuing guns is restrictive, and armed guards at its schools are meant to stop terrorists, not crazed or disgruntled gunmen, experts said Monday, rejecting claims by America's top gun lobby that Israel serves as proof for its philosophy that the U.S. needs more weapons, not fewer.

Far from the image of a heavily armed population where ordinary people have their own arsenals to repel attackers, Israel allows its people to acquire firearms only if they can prove their professions or places of residence put them in danger. The country relies on its security services, not armed citizens, to prevent terror attacks.

NRA moron:"Israel had a whole lot of school shootings until they did one thing: They said, `We're going to stop it,' and they put armed security in every school and they have not had a problem since then," LaPierre said on the NBC News show "Meet the Press."

Israel never had "a whole lot of school shootings." Authorities could only recall two in the past four decades.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor spelled it out.

"We're fighting terrorism, which comes under very specific geopolitical and military circumstances. This is not something that compares with the situation in the U.S," Palmor said.

Gun lobbyists who might think Israel hands out guns freely to keep its citizens safe might be less enamored of Israel's actual gun laws, which are much stricter than those in the U.S. For one thing, notes Yakov Amit, head of the firearms licensing department at the Ministry of Public Security, Israeli law does not guarantee the right to bear arms as the U.S. Constitution does.

Rylan wrote:It was tongue in cheek EPP. But my point is that a lot of kids will die in 2013 but there will be no media or political outrage. That seems hypocritical and bothers me. Sandy Hook was sad, but those kids' deaths are no more important than any other kid that dies.

If that same thing happened in a school with all black kids the reaction would be pretty much the same. I get your general point, but there is something that's different about someone going into a place that's supposed to be full of innocence and shattering it like that.

shafnutz05 wrote:The fearmongering is silly. If you don't live in a shady urban area (like say, the Hill District or North Philadelphia), your chances of getting shot are slim to nil. The problem is, when something like Sandy Hook happens, all you hear is "OH GOD THE HORROR" for months afterwards and demands for rash overreaction.

Your chances of getting shot when going to the grocery store or doing any other of the mundane tasks in your life? Slim to nil. You have a better chance of being involved in a car accident. Or dying of heart disease. Don't go through life fearing the gun that's around the next corner.

Your chances of dying are greater in a car than flying and yet so many people are afraid of flying because when a crash occurs, it makes big news. A person dies in a car crash is not big news. 121 people die in a plane crash, different story. Rather fly where it's safe.

http://money.msn.com/retirement/latest. ... 1ddd186a37Government underestimated SS payout amount needed by $800 billion. Chump change for our drunken sailors running Washington. I'm not going to use that phrase anymore since it's an insult to the sailors. Once they run out of dough they mostly quit drinking until the next payday. It's just another trillion or so that instead of a minimum 20 trillion debt once Barry leaves the total will be 21 trillion.

shafnutz05 wrote:It's hilarious when you look at the statistics on gun violence in the United States over the last 20 years. It has frigging plummeted. PLUMMETED. Yet the calls for stringent gun control are more rabid than ever, thanks to a couple of high-profile shootings.

My God, there are so many examples that show the utter fallacy that is thinking that strict gun control = lower rates of violent crime. It's one of the most frustrating arguments I've ever engaged in, because one side is sheer emotion and the other has the bulk of favorable statistics, examples, etc.

It dropped from the time the previous assault rifle ban. Why throw facts into the fray since the liberals and media have hysterical emotion as the basis of their stance?

Sarcastic wrote:That's the problem we're having and why I partly agree with pro-gun people here. It is our culture and it also is the ease of getting a gun. Now, how do you combine the two, maybe make some kind of compromise, and come up with something. As I said, I'm just stating my argument to show another angle, not that I am uwilling to compromise.

Honest question - have you ever tried to get a gun personally? You say its "easy" to get one. You must pass a background check. You must register the gun. You think every single gun used in every single crime is registered to its lawful purchaser/owner?

Ummm. Are you joking around here or do you seriously not realize how easy it is for anyone to purchase a gun these days?

"Over the course of the hour, Samaha purchased 10 guns: three rifles, four shotguns, one handgun.""Samaha was never asked to fill out any type of background check. At one point he was asked to show identification. When Samaha said he didn't have any, the seller quickly relented, not wanting to lose a sale."

Sarcastic wrote:Or are you saying that most of those were done with illegal weapons -- which would only tell me the gov. needs to hit the illegal gun market much harder than it has. Do you have any stats on how many gun related murders happen with legally purchased weapons? It would be interesting to see. I would consider the thing in Conn. as such, since his mom was a gun enthusiast and legally (I assume) bought hers.

There is a big difference between legally-purchased firearms being used by the legal owner of the guns to commit a crime, and someone other than the lawful owner using a legally-purchased gun to commit a crime. In the latter, as in Newtown, simply by being in possession of certain types of firearms a person may be violating the law.

But lawful owners of guns using their weapons to commit crimes are exceptionally rare, so rare that statistics aren't really maintained. About the only way of tracking such actions is to look at the small population of gun owners that also have a CCW. A felony conviction is grounds for revocation of a CCW permit in just about every jurisdiction. And annually there is significantly less than 1% of CCW permits revoked because the holder was convicted of a felony..... and that's just 'felony', gun crimes would be a smaller subset of that population. The overwhelming majority of CCW revocations following a felony conviction are for DUI.

"Over the course of the hour, Samaha purchased 10 guns: three rifles, four shotguns, one handgun.""Samaha was never asked to fill out any type of background check. At one point he was asked to show identification. When Samaha said he didn't have any, the seller quickly relented, not wanting to lose a sale."

I'm not familiar with VA gun laws, but there's a possibility that many of those transactions were illegal.

penscup wrote:Ummm. Are you joking around here or do you seriously not realize how easy it is for anyone to purchase a gun these days?

Every purchase of a gun from a licensed firearms dealer (like a gun shop) must be done pursuant to a background check, regardless of where the sale takes place. A gun shop that has a table at a gun show must run the same background checks it would run at its permanent storefront.

Not every state, however, requires background checks for private sales between individuals. Say I want to sell one of my rifles. I put an ad on Craigslist, someone responds to the ad, and we agree on a price. Because I’m not a licensed gun dealer, I don’t have to run a background check because it’s a transaction between private parties. This is often referred to as a “loophole,” but that’s really a misnomer. Loophole implies an exception to an existing law, but federal law has never required background checks for private person-to-person sales. (In fact, if the sale is only between people in the same state, the question would arise as to whether Congress could regulate such a sale at all, as that would not be interstate commerce.) The requirement to run background checks has never applied to those sales.

States are free to require additional checks for private-party sales. Pennsylvania requires every sale or transfer of handguns (except between certain family members) to be done pursuant to a background check. Transfers of long guns or shotguns are not subject to that requirement.

shafnutz05 wrote:The fearmongering is silly. If you don't live in a shady urban area (like say, the Hill District or North Philadelphia), your chances of getting shot are slim to nil. The problem is, when something like Sandy Hook happens, all you hear is "OH GOD THE HORROR" for months afterwards and demands for rash overreaction.

Your chances of getting shot when going to the grocery store or doing any other of the mundane tasks in your life? Slim to nil. You have a better chance of being involved in a car accident. Or dying of heart disease. Don't go through life fearing the gun that's around the next corner.

Your chances of dying are greater in a car than flying and yet so many people are afraid of flying because when a crash occurs, it makes big news. A person dies in a car crash is not big news. 121 people die in a plane crash, different story. Rather fly where it's safe.

Four planes get hijacked and driven into the ground and buildings and all of the sudden we've got all these crazy and unnecessary procedures to go through and restrictions for what can/can't be carried on to a plane.

Talk about over-reaction. What gives? Really, include every plane that was ever flown up to and including 9/11, and what are the odds of getting on a plane and having it intentionally driven into the ground or a building? Slim to nil, I'd say.

shafnutz05 wrote:The fearmongering is silly. If you don't live in a shady urban area (like say, the Hill District or North Philadelphia), your chances of getting shot are slim to nil. The problem is, when something like Sandy Hook happens, all you hear is "OH GOD THE HORROR" for months afterwards and demands for rash overreaction.

Your chances of getting shot when going to the grocery store or doing any other of the mundane tasks in your life? Slim to nil. You have a better chance of being involved in a car accident. Or dying of heart disease. Don't go through life fearing the gun that's around the next corner.

Your chances of dying are greater in a car than flying and yet so many people are afraid of flying because when a crash occurs, it makes big news. A person dies in a car crash is not big news. 121 people die in a plane crash, different story. Rather fly where it's safe.

Four planes get hijacked and driven into the ground and buildings and all of the sudden we've got all these crazy and unnecessary procedures to go through and restrictions for what can/can't be carried on to a plane.

Talk about over-reaction. What gives? Really, include every plane that was ever flown up to and including 9/11, and what are the odds of getting on a plane and having it intentionally driven into the ground or a building? Slim to nil, I'd say.

Again, for the umpteenth time. I feel as though I'm uniquely qualified to answer this...

.. I was at the WTC when the planes hit, and now I travel by airplane > 100,000 miles a year.

As far as I'm concerned, if you want to strip search me... go for it. Just keep another 9/11 from happening.

Another 9/11 is unlikely to happen because, in the extraordinarily unlikely case of a hijacking, the cockpit doors are sealed and people would never let them take control of the plane again knowing what we now know.

shafnutz05 wrote:The fearmongering is silly. If you don't live in a shady urban area (like say, the Hill District or North Philadelphia), your chances of getting shot are slim to nil. The problem is, when something like Sandy Hook happens, all you hear is "OH GOD THE HORROR" for months afterwards and demands for rash overreaction.

Your chances of getting shot when going to the grocery store or doing any other of the mundane tasks in your life? Slim to nil. You have a better chance of being involved in a car accident. Or dying of heart disease. Don't go through life fearing the gun that's around the next corner.

Your chances of dying are greater in a car than flying and yet so many people are afraid of flying because when a crash occurs, it makes big news. A person dies in a car crash is not big news. 121 people die in a plane crash, different story. Rather fly where it's safe.

Four planes get hijacked and driven into the ground and buildings and all of the sudden we've got all these crazy and unnecessary procedures to go through and restrictions for what can/can't be carried on to a plane.

Talk about over-reaction. What gives? Really, include every plane that was ever flown up to and including 9/11, and what are the odds of getting on a plane and having it intentionally driven into the ground or a building? Slim to nil, I'd say.

Again, for the umpteenth time. I feel as though I'm uniquely qualified to answer this...

.. I was at the WTC when the planes hit, and now I travel by airplane > 100,000 miles a year.

As far as I'm concerned, if you want to strip search me... go for it. Just keep another 9/11 from happening.

In case my sarcasm towards the argument of "it rarely happens so no need to worry about it" wasn't evident, let me be explicit about it here.

shafnutz05 wrote:Another 9/11 is unlikely to happen because, in the extraordinarily unlikely case of a hijacking, the cockpit doors are sealed and people would never let them take control of the plane again knowing what we now know.

In theory... in practice... not so much.

Don't tell me you've never seen an open (unlocked) cockpit door, at some point in flight, since 9/11.

Also... have you ever looked at how flimsy those bulkheads are?

I'm not saying 9/11 will happen again. I think Todd Beamer was a bigger detriment to another 9/11 than all of TSA, I'm just saying remaining dilligent isn't the worst thing.

Sorry if you're offended that you have to take your shoes off. I wish I could erase what I saw that day from my memory. I'll never be able to properly convey to you or anyone else how surreal it was, or how the images still haunt me to this day.

shafnutz05 wrote:The fearmongering is silly. If you don't live in a shady urban area (like say, the Hill District or North Philadelphia), your chances of getting shot are slim to nil. The problem is, when something like Sandy Hook happens, all you hear is "OH GOD THE HORROR" for months afterwards and demands for rash overreaction.

Your chances of getting shot when going to the grocery store or doing any other of the mundane tasks in your life? Slim to nil. You have a better chance of being involved in a car accident. Or dying of heart disease. Don't go through life fearing the gun that's around the next corner.

Your chances of dying are greater in a car than flying and yet so many people are afraid of flying because when a crash occurs, it makes big news. A person dies in a car crash is not big news. 121 people die in a plane crash, different story. Rather fly where it's safe.

Four planes get hijacked and driven into the ground and buildings and all of the sudden we've got all these crazy and unnecessary procedures to go through and restrictions for what can/can't be carried on to a plane.

Talk about over-reaction. What gives? Really, include every plane that was ever flown up to and including 9/11, and what are the odds of getting on a plane and having it intentionally driven into the ground or a building? Slim to nil, I'd say.

Again, for the umpteenth time. I feel as though I'm uniquely qualified to answer this...

.. I was at the WTC when the planes hit, and now I travel by airplane > 100,000 miles a year.

As far as I'm concerned, if you want to strip search me... go for it. Just keep another 9/11 from happening.

In case my sarcasm towards the argument of "it rarely happens so no need to worry about it" wasn't evident, let me be explicit about it here.

You should know by now that I have NO sarcasm radar... NONE.

Honest to god... I can never tell... it's like being color blind... why dont people use emoticons like this one -=>

shafnutz05 wrote:Another 9/11 is unlikely to happen because, in the extraordinarily unlikely case of a hijacking, the cockpit doors are sealed and people would never let them take control of the plane again knowing what we now know.

Just saw a commercial with a pig operating his phone accessing his insurance account, all while on a plane. When do we need to start worrying about Flying Turkey Trot?

Not Facebook in particular (makes no sense to be on Facebook and not let others know you are there), but the law granting anonymity on the internet. You (and, I) are on LGP anonymously; is that basically what they are threatening suit over? Similar as to here where names are not required? Just curious if you had any insight, opinion.